Responding to Questions in Comments, from Twitter, Proton Mail (working again) • Updates/New Titles: Literature/Recommended Reading Page (books, essays, source documents, etc.), Catalog of Posts Written & Sacred Destabilization Series • August 28, 2022



Twitter:

From Comments, I was asked for my Twitter handle: cyber_variant


Literature Page:

This blog has a Recommended Reading Page, the link is here:

Recommended Reading

Today into tonight I am adding 200+ new titles. They will be uploaded first, then categorized within a few days.

Also, the desktop version of this page (did) show inline embedded files of the book for download (that is, displayed the entire contents of the book in a display case, if you will). On the mobile view version of this page it has always just shown a thick bold red line of the title. I am underway with altering all the titles to the thick bold red lines, for it makes the page load much more expediently.

To download the title, by clicking the line item, the PDF will be downloaded to the device you are using.

As far as the catalog of titles, I own physical and/or digital copies of all of these titles. Titles that I have paid for.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) I am lawfully allowed to make copies available to the public. Resale of the copies is a violation of the DMCA.

If any links are broken, please feel free to contact me and I can restore the media to the link. I can be reached at: e@calculusofdecay.com.

On Twitter I received a few messages in the past few days asking me to add the authors of the titles to the line item. This is a fair request and I will do this soon as well. Also, I was asked to add a small description of each book, this too is a great idea. Within the next few weeks I can work on this. I have this week off from work and I enjoy this blogging community and the subject matter therefore I believe this is a good idea.


Question on Posts by Eric( me):

This was asked in comments, by email and also a few Twitter people. I am putting a page together with a collection of strictly my posts.

Years ago when using WordPress to build and manage small websites for clients, it was relatively easy to segregate posts from the owner of the blog apart from reblogged/pingbacked/RSS feed items/etc into distinct columns on the homepage of the blog. WordPress has made some changes which – for instance – simply activating a “premium plugin” breaks the blog apart from the WordPress framework (the community) and it is bizarre.

One may notice, I have paid for the domain and WordPress services (the main reasons I did this was to have advertising removed- and to have storage space to upload files beyond the 6or8GB the free service allows for). Right now, I am keeping the theme as is and keeping part of the WordPress framework blogging community. Reblogging interesting stuff is my favorite part of this thing.


Sacred Destabilization Series:

Five posts were made and a sixth, an interlude. There are 22 additional parts coming. Possibly more. It’s a massive thing. The books/documents/etc I have uploaded thus far and others to come in the Recommended Reading Page were used as source material. Alongside nearly 400 web sources. Many people that gravitate towards the “conspiratorial inquiry” of this blog know much of the history (ie Bolshevik Revolution, Weimar Republic, “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, occult influences on the methods and rituals of the elite – ideological, philosophical, business and academic influence, etc) – the who/what/when/where of history is there nonetheless my objective is and always has been to understand the why and how. Parts that are coming focus on aforementioned necessary historical background, moreover, on what is happening right now and most importantly: my job is to present evidence of where this thing is going.

And I’ve gotten hold of a shit ton of evidence, of proof – beyond speculative posturing – proof. Therefore, informative pieces are coming in parts Eight thru Ten. Part Seven will be one last historical overview. The parts thus far:


One Last Item: Posts to Showcase Bloggers:

This is an idea I was given by a blogger who commented that as opposed to reblogging as often – to showcase blogs/their posts/etc as a post of my own is a good idea. I completely agree and will begin to do this beginning this week. I am going to reach out to bloggers and to those that wish to participate I will gather posts (chosen by the blogger, if they prefer), short bio (if they would like), etc ..it is a good way to build up the community. Yes. I know, the internet is a vastness of the infinite and what is the point? The point is that it is enjoyable. Simple!

In the meantime, I refer you good readers to:

Tactical Hermit:

This man has a great blog and he is a good friend I have been fortunate to have met thru this platform. He authors alot of content, including this fiction which is a great read:

Why COP26 Refused to Address Planned Obsolescence • Strategic Culture

Source: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/11/08/why-cop26-refused-to-address-planned-obsolescence/

Joaquin Flores

November 8, 2021


The ugly truth about cap and trade and all similar schemes is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same, Joaquin Flores writes.

The failure of the UN’s COP26 conference in Glasgow was spectacle of hypocrisy befitting of a moribund ruling class. These kinds of antics harken back to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, where its decadent ruling class was deadly out of touch with the causes of growing decentralization and dissatisfaction in the periphery. And so taking our historical analogy further, we may begin to unwrap an epochal catastrophe which today’s elite now faces.

The transition from the Roman imperial system, through the Carolingian period, into to the system of medieval Europe, saw a continual decentralization of power, and the evolution of slaves and serfs into land-owning peasants.

Boris Johnson arrives at COP26 by private jumbo jet ready to tackle other leaders on emissions

This economic decentralization was connected to localized power structures. Roman forts thereby formed the basis of the medieval system of castles, and the relative weakness of these lords and little kings correlated to an improvement in the rights and economic power of what became the small land-owning peasantry.

Therefore a method of re-introducing an element of centralization to these structures, to the Vatican in Rome, was the development of the Church and the refinement of its system of tithing from individual offering to an imposed and required tax, enforced by law and collectively. Significant theological and metaphysical questions and dissimilarities aside, here’s what’s critical:

The carbon tax system is a mystical system that cannot be justified by material sciences or concerns, and instead sits as a type of ‘new religion’ that the historical centres of capital have rolled out to justify a type of tithing upon increasingly sovereign and decentralized corners of the world.

Payment of tithing, like the carbon tax system, is an ideological project to maintain powers of a moribund economic system, after the decline of the physical structures of imperialism that held together the old empire.

The various carbon tax systems, (cap and trade CAP/ETS, etc.) are little more than a rehashing of a tithing system.

Like with the Church’s control over the scribes and monasteries, the new carbon cult relies upon its monopoly over the inherited centers of knowledge creation and distribution, to create a parallel reality which requires a payment into something which cannot be rationalized in either scientific or economic terms.

Likewise, one could argue that the influence of abstracted aims of the Church lent towards the management of high unemployment and inflation caused by this tithing tax, through the calling of crusades and counter-rational measures for dealing with plagues, which tended to account for the premature deaths of countless ‘worthless eaters’.

This very much parallels the gross neo-Malthusian solutions proffered by the elites in our day and age.

The amazing part of this? The entire catastrophe today can be avoided if planned obsolescence was eliminated as an economic practice.

It doesn’t matter where one stands on climate science – even a true believer would be forced to see the logic in eradicating planned obsolescence if the aim was carbon neutrality.

Carbon Reduction as Cover for a Sinister Depopulation Agenda

The fundamental issue driving the COP26 population reduction scheme which parades as ‘carbon reduction’, therefore, is the hard problem of overcoming planned obsolescence. This single issue, almost more than any other, is definitive proof that there is no real concern for the environment, and that the ruling class is purely focused on population reduction and the suppression of actual 3D printing and eradicating a real Fourth Industrial Revolution.

That last point may come as a surprise to many, who are following the talking points of Klaus Schwab and company, at the World Economic Forum, who have incorporated these terms into their neo-Malthusian agenda.

They use these words so that we cannot understand them, so we will not look right where they are hiding their real meanings and implications – in their mouths.

So in place, they use the words and phrases – 4IR, 3D printing, IoT – but in actuality they are trying to subvert these while other technologies, entirely coercive and centralizing in nature, are rolled out onto the suffering faces of the masses.

As we have shown in our work on planned obsolescence, nowhere is the subject of planned obsolescence directly confronted – either in Schwab’s “Covid-19: The Great Reset” (in fact the opposite is proposed), nor is it confronted in the SDG Agenda. There is an oblique reference to repairable products and longer product lifespans only on page 62 of the 250 page manifesto. This adds justification to our charge that among the points of the ‘Great Reset’ is a serious reduction in human population.

Global Fight-back – The UN and Beyond

The same technologies to create the three industrial revolutions in the imperial core, were later used by developing countries, to grow and improve their physical economy. But these efforts were conducted in fierce opposition to the centrally directed model of modernity; a centralism coming from the financiers of the City of London and conducted through the geopolitics of the so-called Washington Consensus.

While accurately understanding some of the mutually shared concerns among and between nations, the Agenda 2030 solutions offered stem from the same kind of thinking, and from the very same actors, which produced the problem itself. Why would anyone trust these solutions?

Again, there is nothing profound or rhetorical in that question. The right-thinking leadership of many developing countries entirely understands that point. They are frustrated by the gas-lighting that comes from this globalist institutions which enforce austerity measures which breed corruption and poverty, all while preaching that these same countries haven’t done enough to increase transparency and fight poverty.

Real sovereignty for the so-called global south is intimately tied to two related factors: import substitution industrialization using 3D printing, and a physical economy based in automated production of super-long life goods. This must up-end the present planned obsolescence paradigm with its intentionally shortened PLC (product life cycle). A functional bridge between here and there, is an increased focus on regional trade, which encourages regional cooperation and enlarges spatial conceptions of the sovereign towards a growing multipolarity.

Instead of focusing on this very obvious solution to a whole range of problems which are, generously speaking, fairly represented in the UN Agenda 2030 goals, we are being corralled down a path which unjustifiably focuses on climate change. But critics like Vance Packard in ‘The Waste Makers’ (1960) already saw the problem, and the solution.

We are therefore in a race towards next-generation productive technologies, like localized 3D printing (3DP) which ultimately work against globalized production, against interdependency, and the supply-line security problems, like war, that comes along with it.

The underlying rationale of globalized production, is the exploitation of low wage labor and the maintenance of endemic global inequalities. But as techniques of production improve, and more materials can be synthesized, the twin drivers of this paradigm – low-wage production and raw material extraction – are overcome together.

Ending planned obsolescence vs. ending climate change, represent two different paradigms. The first is connected to a forward looking paradigm reflective of a real and sustainable 4IR, and the second is a cynical ruse not only to limit the rational development of the physical economy, but also human horizons.

The synthesizing of materials eliminates the ‘carbon emissions’ produced by the entire present model of resource extraction, including those emitted by hundreds of millions of workers who generate otherwise unnecessary emissions upstream and downstream, globalized supply-lines, while the carbon footprint for material synthesis will ultimately be smaller. And this much matters only if a real problem is carbon emissions, which is arguable at best.

In other words, we can eliminate those emissions without eliminating the human beings, and moreover, without limiting the quality of life they enjoy. To the contrary, overcoming artificial scarcity in its present form would see a great improvement in quality of life and life expectancy.

And so the focus on improving hyper-efficient methods of globalized distribution is missing the point, if relatively equivalent investment into R&D can get better results in the arena of material synthesis. Synthetic materials are based on polymers which are stronger and longer-lasting than natural or regenerated materials, and lend towards longer lasting products.

What is more efficient than the most efficient delivery system? Not having to distribute it at all.

Nations are not Bound to Agenda 2030 by Force of Treaty

Are most UN member states really ‘all in’ with the climate change game? The vast majority of countries tied into the IMF/UN system of neo-colonialism, are simply waiting out the clock, as alternatives such as BRICS grow against the petro dollar.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), known also as Agenda 2030, use the language of post-colonialism to reinforce a new kind of neo-colonialism. The system behind this push being so-called ‘sustainability’ is what is actually unsustainable, and so developing countries see they simply need to bear with it until it finally implodes.

A lot of unrelated environmental concerns have been collapsed into ‘climate change’. And climate change has been dogmatically tied to carbon emissions. The primary issue then deals with carbon emissions, therefore, even though it is just a single goal (goal 13) among the 17 goals of Agenda 2030.

Seeing the UN graphic below, we can see that the following goals are actually all important matters: 6 (Clean water and sanitation); 7 (Affordable and clean energy); 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure); 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); 12 (Responsible consumption and production); 14 (Life below water); 15 (Life on land).

And so it’s of peculiar interest that 13, climate action (which is merely carbon emissions), is the guiding logic behind all of these, when in fact it is failure to address goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production) which represents the entire economic, social, and environmental cancer of this age, a danger so clear and present and yet rooted so deeply in this paradigm, that the IMF cannot propose a solution that can tackle this.

Goal 12 – responsible consumption and production – is the foundation of all the other goals, if we are to take them seriously. Not goal 13 – climate action – as that in fact goes in the opposite direction. This point will be underscored.

All of this seems so terrible, so why did the majority of UN member states sign on? In fact, Agenda 2030 is not a treaty, it is non-binding and not a criteria for UN membership, and its provisions are not enforceable through the mechanism of treaties between sovereign states. Rather, it was reached ‘by consensus’, whatever that means. What has been constructed as Agenda 2030 presents an outline at best, using input from many UN member states, of what they ‘could’ agree to someday.

Therefore, many countries will make their own sovereign announcements about reaching this part, or that part, of the various goals. This will receive a lot of press, much of it misleading, because these were decisions these countries make on their own. Many of these already overlap with their own national agenda (poverty reduction, clean water, gender inclusiveness). But they do so on their own accord, and this point is critical.

Predatory multinationals like to use provisions on 2030 to place the spectre of global governance and shared goals as justification for policies which undermine the economic and sovereign foundation of developing countries.

But the 17 goals of Agenda 2030 (SDG) represent merely a ‘plan of action’, which countries are not obliged to separately from various accords and treaties which they might presently or later agree to, or which multinationals may attempt to unilaterally impose as a condition of trade, (often backed by the IMF) but which carry their own names and legal details.

Many of the concerns that these goals address are the right ones for countries to be focusing on, and therein lies the rub. Just like with the 4IR, Agenda 2030 turns these on their head, and cynically misdirects them towards a neo-Malthusian genocide.

The ugly truth about cap and trade, and all similar schemes to enforce this globally, is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same. Among the other factors required for this scheme to approximate ‘working’, is to reduce population size. Note that this is not to reduce the rate of population growth, but to reduce the total human population in absolute terms.

In other words, at the heart of the 17 SDG for 2030, the primary source of carbon footprints are human beings.

Overcoming this Paradigm’s Problem

Just like with the human development indexes, and broader economic concerns, Agenda 2030 seizes upon legitimate concerns for the environment, human exposure to carcinogenic materials, birth defects, and clean air and water.

But these become subsumed under the heading of global warming (or, in explaining cooling spells, ‘climate change’), in such an incoherent way that one cannot speak about the legitimate concerns without being forced to answer for climate change.

Innovations that potentiate a 4IR, like 3DP, contain much potential. But there are already existing solutions to the production/income and distribution/purchase cycle plaguing humanity in the face of the rapid automation process underway.

These solutions are as simple as using higher quality parts to substitute the ‘planned to break’ parts in already existing products, all other factors of production being left untouched.

Indeed, we hold that while there are hypothetically limits to growth, the biggest limitation at present is limited thinking about what growth looks like and what new possibilities and discoveries it holds.

Taken together, we can see that overcoming the wastefulness of economies of scale is not the problem which the elite’s conception of Agenda 2030 is aimed at. They want to preserve some type of system of subsidized commodity production, perhaps making products less sturdy, and commonly shared through a drone-delivery rental system.

This would decrease product lifespan while also requiring less goods to be produced, connected to the rental system and a lower total human population.

In some tenacious balance between population reduction and flimsy rental goods, the WEF proposes that this will result in a net decrease in carbon emissions. In looking at the second part of that balance, we can conclude that the population reduction must be significant in order to justify the net reduction claim.

Instead, we maintain that ‘two heads are better than one’, that the increase in human population has a multivariate, non-linear effect towards improvement not only of the human experience, but its positive interrelation with the entire noosphere.

The author can be reached at FindMeFlores@gmail.com

This is the Great Reset

The Introduction of global warming/climate change meme by the UN in 1992, called Agenda 21. The United Nations described Agenda 21 as follows:

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.”

Here is the document itself outlining Agenda 21:

The key to Agenda 21 falling short was the lack of the yet to come Big Tech/Big Data/Deep Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence element that would come in the mid 2010s.

One of the major proponents of Agenda 21 – and one world governance – is the Rockefeller Foundation. As Agenda 21 laid stagnant, the Foundation put this report out in 2010:

One of the most interesting early findings of the plutocracy plan for a takeover comes in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 document titled “Rockefeller Foundation – Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development 2010”

As we can see once we read this document, their future scenario IN THIS DOCUMENT FROM 2010, is brought about by a global pandemic that ushers in a new order. In fact, this future scenario is the catalyst used to bring about “more authoritarian control” which ‘sticks’ and even “intensifies”. (WOW.) Here are the highlights , but link is above if you want to read the whole document. The report titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development has a stated goal of creating “a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.” “A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues… An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge… An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems.” Although the authors of the paper try to claim they are just imagining not predicting the future, given the immense role of the Rockefeller family bloodline and Rockefeller Foundation in pushing the New World Order (NWO) Global Government, this is a ruse to cover their active planning for crisis scenarios that they know will happen. It is also a fine example of predictive programming. In actuality, they are blueprints written by key insiders who already know the game plan and the agenda, and have the power to make it happen. This document expresses 4 scenarios: 1) Lock Step — Tighter Top Down Government Control and Growing Citizen Pushback 2) Hack Attack — Unstable Shock Prone World In Which Criminals Thrive 3) Smart Scramble — Economically Depressed World With Make Shift Solution To Ever Growing Problems. 4) Clever Together — A Highly Coordinated Global Government Where Successful Strategies For Solving All Problems Emerges. The scenario “Lock Step”, one of four included in a publication called “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” in 2010, describes a coronavirus-like pandemic that becomes the trigger for the imposition of police-state controls on movement, economy, and other areas of society. Remove such obstacles as ‘individual rights’ and you have a recipe for surviving, even thriving in the event of a pandemic, the Foundation states. (remember, this was written in 2010): “A few countries did fare better – China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing-off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.” The message is clear – police state good, freedom bad. And other governments rapidly get the message, according to the simulation. First and third world nations alike follow suit by “flexing their authority” and imposing quarantines, body-temperature checks, and other “airtight rules and restrictions” – most of which, the report is careful to note, remain in place even as the pandemic recedes into the past. “In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems – from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty – leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.” “This global power-grab is facilitated by a frightened citizenry who “willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability…tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight.” “Everything from tighter biometric identification to stricter industrial regulation is welcomed with open arms. It takes over a decade for people to “grow weary” of the authoritarian controls imposed in the wake of the pandemic, and hints that even the civil unrest that ultimately manifests is focused on the developed world. After all, a popular uprising in the technocratic police state envisioned by the simulation would be all but impossible – as it will be in real life once 5G makes real-time total surveillance of all cities a reality.” Just as many scientists concluded SARS was a manmade bioweapon, many scientists, statesmen, and alternative media, have raised the alarm about coronavirus. Good luck finding any of their statements on Google, however. Facebook, Youtube and Twitter have been hard at work removing coronavirus “rumors,” and Google has memory-holed hundreds of search results regarding Chinese accusations of biowarfare. (I am not saying this is or is not true. I just find it interesting that you can not find ANY of this information online anymore. Don’t you find that odd?)

Remember, this document is looking at a future scenario from its publish date of 2010, which was ten years ago. The Rockefeller Foundation paints a disturbing picture, a future pandemic that kills 8 million people in just seven months. (Looking at the present, the Coronavirus has not killed anywhere near that number. Most of those who died from Coronavirus had chronic health issues to begin with.

More in the document: “The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.” More scenarios in the document: “Without Government Intervention Virus Spreads” “The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols.” Translation: In the absence of an authoritarian government, the virus was able to spread. By definition, the Rockefeller Foundation is embracing and promoting authoritarian government. In their scenario, they are seeking to remove the rights of the people in order to prevent the virus from spreading. In their mind, during a Pandemic or other similar event, the government must overturn the law and become authoritarian. That all becomes even more clear as we continue to analyze this document. In developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. In the mind of the Rockefeller Foundation, our Constitution amounts to “leniency”. Therefore, our Constitution should have been suspended, and replaced with authoritarian government in order to contain the spread of the future virus. This is a clear violation of our basic God-given rights. (remember, this was written in 2010). More from the document: “Authoritarianism Will Contain Virus Outbreak” “However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post- pandemic recovery.” The globalist Rockefeller Foundation praises Communist China for their authoritarian actions, remember, this was a future scenario, not reality. However, this is exactly what happened in China! They were indeed the first to lock down their nation, and the rest of the world followed suit. By definition, the Rockefeller Foundation explains Communism, which is authoritarianism protecting the people. Of course, this is always how globalists spin their propaganda, “it’s for the good of the people”. In reality, our freedoms are removed for the good of global government, not for the people. From the 2010 document: “During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.” (ummmm, sound familiar?) If it is hard for you to differentiate this future scenario from reality, you are not alone. Their future scenario is our reality, just look at what is happening right now. “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.” Not only will these authoritarian controls remain according to the Rockefeller Foundation, but they will intensify. That means our freedom and rights will continue to be removed, not just in the United States, but globally. (Have you heard of “The Great Reset” yet? Read my other post linked at the top). “In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

As we can see, their future scenario IN THIS DOCUMENT FROM 2010, is brought about by a global pandemic that ushers in a new order. In fact, this future scenario is the catalyst used to bring about “more authoritarian control” which ‘sticks’ and even “intensifies”.

So what is so interesting about this document and who wrote it, is that The Rockefeller Foundation is one of the main funders of the World Economic Forum that is implementing Agenda 2030/Sustainable Development Goals/New World Order. To change the world into Global Governance (New World Order), a world crisis needs to occur to move into “The Great Reset”. Eeeerily similar to this 2010 document written by these same GLOBALISTS funding the UN & Global Governance. This is a simple connect the dots.

Just a snippet of info about the Rockefellers: The Rockefeller family has been in the forefront of eugenics-the science of population control, since 1902. In 1952, David Rockefeller’s eldest brother John established the Population Council. In the subsequent decades, the eugenics program developed, tested, and implemented various bio-warfare tools, as a means of controlling population growth. Since then, efforts at creating the necessary infrastructure, research bodies, lab testing and experimentations, have proceeded till the present day. By the end of 1945, the dominant force in America was the 5 Rockefeller brothers. Their mandate was to take control of the entire globe, and to eliminate any rivals on its quest for global dominance.

Starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the first fruits of their research yielded the AIDS virus, which devastated many Third World nations. This was followed by more exotic viruses such as SARS, MERS 2000, Ebola, the Avian flu, etc. The UN is a Rockefeller entity. The UN has branched off into the World Health Organization, which has other branched within it like Codex Alimentarius and the Food and Drug Administration. The WHO is a part of the UN apparatus, and we find that WHO was very quick to issue a pandemic alert, when there is zero proof of it. Most of know that the WHO is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation who is pushing the vaccines. (Interestingly, enough, 14 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (NWO) can NOT be achieved without vaccines. This was in a live video spoken about right from the World Economic Forum website.) Are we connecting the dots yet?

Agenda 21 adjusted to reflect progress made with technology, brought about Agenda 2030, signed into effect in 2015.

“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.”

Take a good look at the symbols for Agenda 2030 as they now appear EVERYWHERE:

In detail, the SDGs are explained here:

Sustainable Development Goals

  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
  • Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
  • Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
  • Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
  • Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
  • Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
  • Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
  • Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
  • Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
  • Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
  • Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

THE INITIATION OF AGENDA 2030:

Key development in June 2019 – PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN UN AND WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM:

The United Nations entered into a strategic partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) in June 2019. Their partnership was formulated to carrying out Agenda 2030 over the course of a decade. A summary of their partnership reads as follows:

“Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals is essential for the future of humanity. The World Economic Forum is committed to supporting this effort, and working with the United Nations to build a more prosperous and equitable future,”

Klaus Schwab, World Economic Founder & Executive Chairman.

“The new Strategic Partnership Framework between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum has great potential to advance our efforts on key global challenges and opportunities, from climate change, health and education to gender equality, digital cooperation and financing for sustainable development. Rooted in UN norms and values, the Framework underscores the invaluable role of the private sector in this work – and points the way toward action to generate shared prosperity on a healthy planet while leaving no one behind,”

António Guterres, UN Secretary General.

The Gates FoundatiON:

Bill Gates face is everywhere lately. He seems to be the mouthpiece of the collective globalist agenda, spearheading the vaccine initiative, as well as making commentary on climate change, Bitcoin and smart cities – amongst other things.

Bill and Melinda Gates started the Gates Foundation and as far back as February 2000, pledged $750 Million to a Global Fund to the benefit of the UN, UN-linked World Health Organization and UNICEF – with funds earmarked for vaccines. The announcement of the donation was made at a WEF event:

John Hopkins University:

Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation have made nearly $100 Million in donations to various initiatives to John Hopkins University, beginning in 1997. The university is one of the oldest most prestigious medical schools in the world. A summary of these charitable contributions can be viewed here: Gates Foundation and John Hopkins University

From the John Hopkins University-Bloomberg School of Public Health came the think-tank the Center for Health Security.

EVENT 201:

October 2019, the John Hopkins Center for Health Security, under the guidance of the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, hosted Event 201. On the Center for Health Security website, Events 201 is described as follows:

“The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.
“in recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing, and they are disruptive to health, economies, and society. Managing these events already strains global capacity, even absent a pandemic threat. Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.”

-Center for Health Security, 2019

Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. Microsoft made an investment in Facebook in 2007, years prior to Facebook’s IPO. The investment was $240 Million. At the time, Dustin Moscovitz was still materially involved at the executive levels of Facebook.

Event 201 was supported by funding from the Open Philanthropy Project, a not-for-profit foundation chaired by one of Facebook’s founders and owners, Dustin Moscovitz.

The Open Philanthropy Project recommended a grant of $16 million over three years to the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (CHS) to provide general operating support, to support its domestic and international work on health security and public health preparedness, and to fund an initiative focused on potential global catastrophic risks (GCRs) posed by pandemic pathogens. 

THE PANDEMIC BEGINS – DECEMBER 2019:

Taking a lookback at the Rockefeller document, the entire benefit of the pandemic would be economic, social and academic lockdowns around the world:

THE DECIMATION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS:

We all know of the endless microcosms as to the effect the lockdowns have had in terms of eviscerating the workling class. What I found fascinating are these two articles, published a day apart, in the same publication, Business Insider:

$3.7 vs $3.9 trillion – WEALTH TRANSFER IN PLAIN SIGHT. THIS IS WHAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE LOCKDOWNS OF SMALL AND MIDSIZE BUSINESSES DURING SCAMDEMIC HAS BEEN.

It runs much deeper. The underbelly of the Great Reset is a shift from the past 100+/- years of a fiat currency based global system of debt-laden, consumerist capitalism – which I firmly believe that in the past three decades of the internet and world wide web made open to the common public – this information age has exposed that the “rulers of the world” are the globalist/elitist/ZIONIST money changing families that have pilfered all the natural, needed and precious resources from the people in exchange of this worthless debt-based system of credit which uses currency – fiat – which has no intrinsic value. The system was coming down in 1986, again in 2001, heavy exposure in the 2008 “crisis” and the blackhole of FOREVER-DEBT is all a huge SCAM.

Therefore – with Agenda 2030, which is being spearheaded into place by the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset – a new paradigm of VALUE is being manufactured by the UN’s many programs, the IMF, the Bank of International Settlements, the mega-investment firms (BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs), the critical global consulting firms (McKinsey, Accenture, Deloitte, KPMG, E&Y, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, etc), the powerful think tanks (Brookings Institution, the Chatham House, Council on Foreign Relations) and on and on….this new measure of value will be determined by a yet to be finalized set of SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. However, provided are the UNITED NATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME FINANCE INITITATIVE’s cute little pamphlet on how banks will become signatories for the Sustainable Development Goals.

All of the shit like Net-Zero / Internet of Bodies / Elimination of Carbon Emissions / Vaccine Passports – the invisible boogie man, that also will never to be able

THE GREAT RESET OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED JUNE 3, 2020

Here is Schwab’s Book:

This would all seem like fluff – only – the sentiment of (((Western Democracies))) is to capitulate to the BIG BAD CLIMATE CHANGE EXTINCTION EVENT which is inevitable unless a ONE WORLD CULTURE emerges that will acquiesce and give in to the climate change atomwaffen blast that is inevitable.

Check out policy papers by corporations, think tanks, NGOs, governments far and wide, etc etc

Goldman Sachs:

World Trade Organization:

Deloitte with the WEF:

CHINA will lead the way:

RESCUE NGO MEME’S REFUGEES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE:

Petronas – gayOped

McKinsey (STATING PANDEMIC WILL LAST 18 MONTHS:

Council on Foreign Relations TEN YEARS AGO

The Economist (Rothschild Consortium publication)

I have found over one thousand documents all regurgitating the same shit. Over the span of two decades.

This is the move for the One World Order….

More to come…

The Great Reset: The Fate of the US dollar

The Collapse Experiment

While reading this book I was surprised and yet not surprised at the same time that this was so far the shortest chapter. Schwab makes the obvious conclusion that there is a chance the US dollar will no longer be the world reserve currency. He discounts new forms of currency like Bitcoin but towards the end mentions the Chinese renminbi (RMB) as a possible replacement. I’m not sure if this is a smoke screen for what appears to already be happening with some countries suggesting copying the Chinese model of doing Social Credit Scores and moving all commerce to a digital format. For years now Russia and China have been buying up physical gold and silver, paying almost double in some situations above spot price, and building vaults in their national banks to house it in. Could there be a digital currency backed by gold and silver in the future?…

View original post 514 more words